. Why aren't their marches and protests in the streets of Mexico or Nicaragua demanding less gov't corruption, greater civil rights, etc.?

I know I am arriving late to the party but i had to take issue with this one...

Ever been to Mexico or Nicaragua? Do you speak Spanish? Have you ever talked to these immigrants about their reasons for leaving? If the answer is no STFU.

There are protests ALL THE TIME in Latin America. Many times protests happen despite police brutality far exceeding anything that has happened in the U.S. Change does happen and the protests can be effective (see the zapatistas). However, I think you fail to understand what people there are up against. They would like nothing else in the world than to make their home country a perfect place to live. It was easy/reasonable to do, it would be done already.

Here is an analogy:Say someone was born in South Central L.A. Would you tell them not to move to Orange County because they should be fixing South Central instead?

I have been to Mexico, I do speak fluent Spanish, and I spent several years doing volunteer work with Latin American people (which led to many conversations). So my answer is YES.

Your analogy about L.A. and Orange County is pretty ridiculous-in fact they are nowhere near the same. It isn't illegal to move to Orange County, it is to move to the U.S. without documentation.

There may me protests in Latin American countries, but NOT all of the time (nice try). Even if we open up our borders and let everyone in who wants to come, that won't end poverty in those countries. If anything it will prolong the reign of corrupt governments. These governments encourage the poor to emigrate to America, where they make money and send it back to their families. This money gets put back into the system (taxes, basic necessities, bribes), which ends up in the pockets corrupt officials. 1/4 of Guatemala's GDP comes from money sent back from Guatemalans working outside the country.

And for the record, most Latin Americans that I spoke with would much rather have stayed in their country. Coming to the U.S. to work in difficult jobs and being taken advantage of, while often having to live in inadequate housing wasn't their idea of a good time. They left because there are opportunities here.

Your answer was assuming views based on that response that I may or may not have.

The south central to oc makes sense only within the specific context of your statement that they should just try to improve their country instead of coming here.

My personal view is that illegal immigration is a symptom rather than a cause. It is an almost inevitable consequence of historical/economic factors coupled with current policy. Want to make illegal immigration disappear almost entirely? Its easy- just grant green cards quickly to everyone who applies. I'm not advocating that as a solution- just showing how the policies of the U.S. affect the situation far more than the immigrants themselves.

I have been to Mexico, I do speak fluent Spanish, and I spent several years doing volunteer work with Latin American people (which led to many conversations). So my answer is YES.

Your analogy about L.A. and Orange County is pretty ridiculous-in fact they are nowhere near the same. It isn't illegal to move to Orange County, it is to move to the U.S. without documentation.

There may me protests in Latin American countries, but NOT all of the time (nice try). Even if we open up our borders and let everyone in who wants to come, that won't end poverty in those countries. If anything it will prolong the reign of corrupt governments. These governments encourage the poor to emigrate to America, where they make money and send it back to their families. This money gets put back into the system (taxes, basic necessities, bribes), which ends up in the pockets corrupt officials. 1/4 of Guatemala's GDP comes from money sent back from Guatemalans working outside the country.

And for the record, most Latin Americans that I spoke with would much rather have stayed in their country. Coming to the U.S. to work in difficult jobs and being taken advantage of, while often having to live in inadequate housing wasn't their idea of a good time. They left because there are opportunities here.

Question: Do you mean GNP? GDP is Gross Domestic Product and includes only the goods and services produced within the country.

GDP may well include ex-pat salaries, but I wasn't under the impression that it did.

"Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, CIS calculates the lifetime fiscal impact on government -- taxes paid minus services used -- for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200."

This is for a LEGAL immigrant.

"Even after welfare reform, an estimated 34 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 25 percent headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program, in contrast to 15 percent of native households."

25% of household headed by illegals! That is huge. I don't see how in-state tuition or illegal immigration can be justified, especially with the pathetic argument that they put more back into the society than they take out.

"Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in 10 natives."

If that is the case for legal immigrants (who could afford to go through the process), then what do you think the statistics would be for illegal immigrants?

"The Mexican government supports an illegal alien amnesty..."

Of course it does! They are getting rid of the uneducated and unemployed. If they are in the U.S. then they are somebody else's problem and less resources have to be spent on them. AND let's not forget the money that they are sending BACK to Mexico from the U.S.

"The money they send home to Mexico -- $2.5 billion to $3.9 billion -- is equal to about half the direct foreign investment in Mexico."

So, not only does the Mexican government get rid of the uneducated and unemployed, but they are encouraged to enter the U.S. illegally. Once there, the Mexican government knows they will send BILLIONS of dollars back to Mexico. That money goes into the system and ends up where!? In the pockets of corrupt Mexican officials-police, judges, city leaders, state leaders, and federal leaders.

The problem is not with the U.S., it is with Mexico. There is NEVER going to be a change in Mexico and an end to poverty in Mexico, until there are some major reforms. As long as the burden of employing Mexico's poor is continually pawned off on the U.S., Mexican leaders will not be held accountable.

Wow, did you even try to understand what my point was? Did you even see the other statistics? Have you read any of the other posts on here?

Poor American citizens are CITIZENS of our country and we have the obligation to take care of them. Since when did it become our responsibility to provide welfare to citizens of other countries? Just because we take care of the AMERICAN poor, doesn't mean that have to (or even should) take care of the poor from other countries-especially those who broke the law and came to our country illegally.

Personally, I have a very weak sense of national identity. I feel the same sense of obligation to a poor person in Mexico as a poor person here in the U.S. Most of the anti-immigrant crowd feels a much stronger sense of national identity, so the idea of having to support international poverty to some degree is much more repugnant.

I fully understand we cannot put the whole world on wellfare- just explaining where the differing viewpoints hinge.

The U.S. provides more aid than any other country (unfortunately it is abused by many countries). I am in support of helping other countries, however when it comes to the American welfare system-it is for Americans. I think we have enough poor and problems in our own country to take care of and our domestic welfare system is already terribly under funded. Domestically, Americans are our first priority.